Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
VENKATESH NAIK T.
Sundar Annasaheb Kamble – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep, S/o. Tanaji Ghodake – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint and trial court proceedings. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. evidence of loan transaction. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. presumptions under negotiable instruments act. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. legal obligations of the accused. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. burden of proof on the accused. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 24) |
ORDER :
(VENKATESH NAIK T., J.)
Heard Sri.Harshwardhan M.Patil, learned counsel for Sri.Ramesh I.Patil., learned counsel the petitioner and Sri.Sachin C.Angadi., learned counsel for respondent.
2. The petitioner-accused has filed this petition under Section 397 (1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘ Cr.P.C .) praying to set-aside the judgment dated 04.10.2023 passed by learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) in Crl.A.No.5025/2022 and also to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2022 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Nippani (for short ‘Trial Court’)in C.C.No.117/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, issuance of a cheque creates a presumption of a legally enforceable debt, and the burden lies on the accused to disprove this, which was not done.
The absence of evidence for a legally enforceable debt results in the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act not operating in favor of the complainant.
The presumption of issuance of a cheque in discharge of a debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise, with convictions upheld when the ....
The court held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused bears the burden to rebut the presumption that a cheque was issued for a valid debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption of debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
The court established that once a cheque is issued and signed, a legal presumption exists regarding its use for a valid debt, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to deny its validity.
The signed blank cheque carries a legal presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate non-liability.
The issuance of a negotiable instrument establishes a presumption of liability, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the debt, as established by Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
